In the ongoing saga between Apple and clone Mac creator Psystar, the Cupertino, Calif., company has filed a new document alleging Psystar erased crucial evidence.

In last week's court filing, Apple alleges that Psystar violated federal rules and a court order after it allegedly destroyed evidence Apple considers pivotal in its upcoming case against Pystar. The trial is scheduled to start on Jan. 11, 2010.

"Defendant, Psystar Corporation, has destroyed relevant evidence that was legally required to preserve," the court document reads. "Specifically, Psystar has overwritten -- i.e. erased -- infringing versions of the software code used on computers sold to its customers."

In its lawsuit, Apple has attempted to portray Psystar as a company in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Psystar modifies the software Apple creates for its OS X operating system so that it can be installed on non-Apple hardware. The clone Mac maker was served with discovery in November 2008, as Apple sought to obtain the software used by Psystar to create their machines.

"This discovery revealed that Psystar has erased prior versions of its software that Apple's experts independently found on defendant's computers," the document states.

The heavily redacted document conceals descriptions of the bootloader code used by Psystar, but asks the court to force the company to produce the software. One footnote in the document, referring to a redacted portion, reads: "Psystar's counsel stated that Psystar's e-mail and customer support software (SupportSuite) randomly 'deletes or loses' e-mails."

The latest addition, dated Aug. 10, was filed in a California court by the Townsend law firm. In the back-and-forth battle, last week Psystar announced it would depose numerous Apple executives in its own defense. Prior to that, the company's request for its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing to be dismissed was granted in a Florida court. However, that same ruling prevents the company from filing for bankruptcy again to delay Apple's case against them in California.

Psystar really seem to be clutching at straws here. Hopefully, this case will provide a really solid precedent. It will certainly cause Apple to clear up any further ambiguities in its EULA (for instance 'Apple-branded - I put a sticker on it so there' seems to be a favoured target for the loopholers.

I think Psystar knows it's going down in flames and has decided to become a Kamikaze, trying to hit Apple somewhere before the end comes. This whole episode just confirms speculation that Psystar is a puppet whose strings are being pulled by someone else and I hope the truth comes out some day.

Why is it so hard to put someone who is clearly making knock off Macs out of business? And why do Psystar even bother to fight, surely they know they must lose. Do they seriously think they can pull the wool over the eyes of a judge.

On the other hand, some idiot judge banned sales of Word a few days ago, so there's some weird ones out there.

Why is it so hard to put someone who is clearly making knock off Macs out of business? And why do Psystar even bother to fight, surely they know they must lose. Do they seriously think they can pull the wool over the eyes of a judge.

On the other hand, some idiot judge banned sales of Word a few days ago, so there's some weird ones out there.

The results of this case should set precedent for all future EULA cases hopefully. A part of me wants Apple to win so they can put a company out of business that is knowingly reverse engineering and modifying OS X to install on their hardware, but the other part wants Psystar to win so there can be more competition and make Macs more affordable to all. However Psystar isn't helping their cause by some silly things they have been doing.

The results of this case should set precedent for all future EULA cases hopefully. A part of me wants Apple to win so they can put a company out of business that is knowingly reverse engineering and modifying OS X to install on their hardware, but the other part wants Psystar to win so there can be more competition and make Macs more affordable to all. However Psystar isn't helping their cause by some silly things they have been doing.

Agreed on the first part.

But theft of IP, illegal use of IP , etc., etc, is most certainly not "competition."

Psystar really seem to be clutching at straws here. Hopefully, this case will provide a really solid precedent. It will certainly cause Apple to clear up any further ambiguities in its EULA (for instance 'Apple-branded - I put a sticker on it so there' seems to be a favoured target for the loopholers.

If you put an Apple sticked on a PCs and start selling them then you will be violating the trademark law and will be shutdown fast. I don't think there is a problem with how the EULA is worded (remember Psystar actually tried and failed to challenge the wording in court) and the use of "Apple Labeled" is actually smart.

I think Psystar knows it's going down in flames and has decided to become a Kamikaze, trying to hit Apple somewhere before the end comes. This whole episode just confirms speculation that Psystar is a puppet whose strings are being pulled by someone else and I hope the truth comes out some day.

I think this whole thing is a set up to get a court to rule on terms of a cat and mouse game, with the goal being a clear path for 3rd party installation of Apple's OS on 3rd party hardware. Once the standards have been set in court, the cheap hardware will appear. Thing is, Apple is a master at reducing cost, in places others do not see, being one reason their profit margins are higher.

Anyhow, I heard Apple was going to buy an aluminum mine and processing company along with a few fabs to reduce costs and streamline production. Their goal is to be able to pull the raw materials out of the ground on monday and have a finished product in your hand on wednesday .

Jokes aside, if anyone wants to start a Mac Clone Company with me for fun, let me know. It's a great way to have your chance at talking to top Apple officials the back door way. Crazy what people will do when Apple will not hire them.

Cheers.

Be nice if there were a dedicated Channel to the whole proceedings on this. Can't wait to hear the questions Psystar asks Apple Employees... Do you use any recreational Drugs ? Do you think that might affect your ability to answer these questions in truthful and coherent...? and... Would you agree that Apple is a secretive company? Would you agree they do everything in their power to protect their trade secrets? Would you agree that is one of the reasons we are here today? Then how do I know you are going to tell the truth, the whole truth.... given you are sworn to secrecy and may lose your job if you talk? So would you say working for Apple is more like working for a free company or working for socialist like...?

Oh, the humor, truth and comical value of the interrogation that is going to go on between these two companies in deposition and court. If I could only be a fly on the wall or have it streamed to my apple tv

But theft of IP, illegal use of IP , etc., etc, is most certainly not "competition."

Why do Macs need to be affordable "to all"? Who is "all"?

Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs. As for as who is all, I am talking about the people who want to get a Mac computer, but are not able to pay $1,000 dollars for a model. I know the Mac Mini starts at $599, but most people I know want a laptop instead and Apple doesn't cut it at that price range. Also when they go into an Apple Store, the Mini isn't exactly displayed prominently like an iMac or portable solutions. For me, I think a $700 dollar MacBook type price point is a great starting price.

Don't make too much of these filings. As someone observed in another thread on this subject, lawsuits are a form of warfare -- both sides throw every weapon they've got, or even think they've got, at each other. The judge must decide whether these allegations are supported and relevant.

Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs. As for as who is all, I am talking about the people who want to get a Mac computer, but are not able to pay $1,000 dollars for a model. I know the Mac Mini starts at $599, but most people I know want a laptop instead and Apple doesn't cut it at that price range. Also when they go into an Apple Store, the Mini isn't exactly displayed prominently like an iMac or portable solutions. For me, I think a $700 dollar MacBook type price point is a great starting price.

Really that's what you want? That's the Windows world. Where any tom, dick or harry can make PC's or their components. That leads to numerous driver stability problems and compatibility issues. That's a big reason for BSOD's on Windows. I for one much prefer having the OS and HW built by the same vendor and having them ensure reliability. I will and do pay a premium for that added quality.

Psystar... you are doing this all wrong. You can't just go in with all the gusto on your own. You have a good portion of the Hackintosh community against you, you have the Apple fans very much against you, and you don't have any good footing legally.

If you did it right, this would have been better for you. You shouldn't have sold OS X. You shouldn't have made your own version of OS X to work on your computers. You should have made computers that would have run OS X with only a bootloader. It was(is) possible. If you didn't sell OS X, then your argument would have been so much better. If you paid back the hackintosh community, that would have been a good move too.

Oh well. You are gone now. Maybe someone else will decide to do it right. Have a decent legal team go through the EULA, figure out exactly what a person can do, and what areas Apple really is infringing on personal rights. Then we'll have a good day!

One footnote in the document, referring to a redacted portion, reads: "Psystar's counsel stated that Psystar's e-mail and customer support software (SupportSuite) randomly 'deletes or loses' e-mails."

Psystar is starting to give politicians a good name... "radomly 'deletes or loses' e-mails"... RIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTT!

Is Psystar still selling Mac computers? Just have Apple have an outside third party purchase a computer to see if Psystar slips up and send oout incriminating support help documents. That or have the purchaser call Psystar with "OS" installment problems and note what support Psystar gives... even find a purchaser in a state that allows recording of conversations as long as one party knows about it... again to see if Psystar gives up the loot!

They should make this case into a sitcom series with a "Get Smart" genre... a comical side to a serious situation.

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

I personally can already afford them. I want the legal system to make the right decision, whether it's for Apple or for Psystar. We all want lower prices across any industry.

It is not the responsibility nor the job of the courts to ensure that everyone can afford premium products and services (Apple or others). You can price and sell your product for as you with as long as you don't break the law.

Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs. As for as who is all, I am talking about the people who want to get a Mac computer, but are not able to pay $1,000 dollars for a model. I know the Mac Mini starts at $599, but most people I know want a laptop instead and Apple doesn't cut it at that price range. Also when they go into an Apple Store, the Mini isn't exactly displayed prominently like an iMac or portable solutions. For me, I think a $700 dollar MacBook type price point is a great starting price.

I agree with you fully! The reason Psystar came to be was because people were sick of the extremely high prices, when they knew that they could get the same product WITH OS X for less. They just did it all wrong. Heck, the computers in terms of hardware are exactly the same...

I am pro "Apple for everyone" where price points are actually in a competitive place. Sadly, even though they can afford to do it, they are not coming down to the competitive level. Honestly, I would have been okay with paying more for their computers if their quality was better. In my personal experiance, that is very much NOT the case. Same exact hardware leads to same exact hardware failures (even more so in a mac when it comes to heat). I remember the day when you bought a mac and it would last you 4-6 years before it was "too old". These days its every two years. Same as a PC. I am okay with paying more if it will last you longer. They do not.

But the thing that bothers me most are the mentalities I've seen in replies to your "so everyone can afford" them comments are the "We don't want everyone to afford them" snippets. It feels so elitist to me. I thought Apple was about "Think Different" not "For the financially over appreciated". The mentality I see has drawn me even more away from Apple products. I do not want to be labeled as a fan, nor as a "oh, she has an Apple so she has money" or any of those negative things. I don't like the "Label". The only good thing about Apple is the creativity side of things. And that's all I use it for (though less and less as I find decent products on the PC and Linux, more so the latter)

If Apple used desktop parts, made an actual mid-tower, and brought their prices down to a more competitive level (which they could do and keep their margins if they went to desktop parts), we would be seeing MANY more macs than windows boxes out there. There would most likely be a revolution. But until then, forget it. Apple is just shooting themselves in the foot, making way for MS, Linux, and people who learn from Psystar's mistakes. We are just riding the iPod / iPhone wave... and the wave will crash again.

... the other part wants Psystar to win so there can be more competition and make Macs more affordable to all.

Why should Macs be affordable by all? All you need to do is replace "Mac" by a few other premium brand names like BMW, Rolex, Armani etc. to see how ludicrous the whole argument is. Are you saying these companies should be denied intellectual property protection just so you can afford to buy one of their products for less than you might otherwise? It's your choice - if you don't think the product is worth the price, don't buy it.

In any case, I'd argue against the assumption that Macs aren't affordable. They're not THAT expensive, and quite apart from the Mac Mini there are always plenty of offers on old stock when a new model is introduced, refurbished machines from Apple, etc. that can significantly reduce the cost. Macs tend to have a very long usable life, so you're not missing much if you can't justify paying for the latest and greatest top of the range model.

Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs.

Well, first of all, there aren't, by definition, going to be any "legit, unhacked OS X installs," on 3rd party hardware, so that's just not going to happen

Secondly, this whole idea of "better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components," completely ignores reality and history. Apple already went down that road once before and it almost destroyed them. Jobs did the right thing by killing the clones. Without hardware sales associated with each copy of Mac OS X (and this includes upgrades, which are associated with the original hardware), Apple can't survive and continue to develop OS X.

(Palm nearly killed themselves off by going a similar route, although, they also made other mistakes too numerous to list here.)

While we would all probably like to be able to buy 15" MacBook Pros for $800, it's just not going to happen. Microsoft had the incredible luck to get the OS contract for the IBM PC, and the even more incredible luck that IBM let them keep the rights to the OS. That coupled with IBM's power at that time in corporate markets, and the bad (for them) decision to open the PC architecture, resulted in a perfect storm for Microsoft where they were able to create a profitable business selling (what, even at the time, was a fairly primitive OS) to the flood of clone makers who entered the market to make IBM compatible PCs.

That Microsoft was able to base its business on operating system software sales was basically a dumb accident that isn't likely to be repeated. So, there are no valid comparisons of the Windows and OS X markets, and attempting to replicate Microsoft's success with DOS/Windows, or suggesting that route for Apple, without replicating the conditions that led to it -- which is impossible in today's market -- is just a recipe for corporate suicide.

Psystar is not a company trying to make a living. It is a "company" funded by other conspiring corporations to examine every possible angle of Apple's legal powers, for the purpose of discovering their strong and weak points. Once those points are discovered, Psystar or their conspiring partners can then use this data to maneuver through the legal system flawlessly and possibly dethrone Apple.
I call on Microsoft or Dell.

Why should Macs be affordable by all? All you need to do is replace "Mac" by a few other premium brand names like BMW, Rolex, Armani etc. to see how ludicrous the whole argument is. Are you saying these companies should be denied intellectual property protection just so you can afford to buy one of their products for less than you might otherwise? It's your choice - if you don't think the product is worth the price, don't buy it.

In any case, I'd argue against the assumption that Macs aren't affordable. They're not THAT expensive, and quite apart from the Mac Mini there are always plenty of offers on old stock when a new model is introduced, refurbished machines from Apple, etc. that can significantly reduce the cost. Macs tend to have a very long usable life, so you're not missing much if you can't justify paying for the latest and greatest top of the range model.

So true. I'm sick of people thinking that Macs have to be affordable. They aren't for everyone -- they provide a better experience because they're more expensive and therefore generally have higher quality hardware. And yes, they have higher profit margins, but they also deserve it, because their hardware and software work almost flawlessly. Not only that, they have to deal with the consumer if he/she has any problems because they're directly responsible. Try telling that to Microsoft or any of the PC makers...

If Apple decides it wants to be part of the market, NOT the whole market, so be it. Pystar shouldn't be allowed to force it to do otherwise .